Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/landlord/revisionist. No one appears on behalf of the defendant/tenant/respondent even in the revised call.

2. Today the case is listed peremptorily.

3. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 26.3.2012 in S.C.C. Case No. 02 of 2002 (Ramesh Chand Gupta v. Pawan Kumar Jain) passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jhansi.

4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the revisionist is the owner and landlord of House No. 528 (Old No. 40), Kutchehri Crossing, Jhansi. He has given two shops of the said building on rent to the defendant/respondent @ Rs. 800/- per month under Rent Agreement dated 1.10.1987 effective for 11 months. The defendant/respondent also gave Rs. 30,000/- as advance money to be returned after vacation of the shops. According to the revisionist/landlord, the defendant/respondent has neither paid rent after 1.8.2001 nor deposited house tax and water tax since the commencement of tenancy and as such the revisionist/landlord sent notice dated 24.10.2001 through his counsel to the defendant/respondent terminating the tenancy and demanded arrears of rent. The notice was received by the defendant/respondent on 29.10.2001. However, the defendant/respondent neither replied the notice nor paid the amount as asked under the aforesaid notice. Consequently, the revisionist/landlord filed S.C.C. Case No. 02 of 2002 for eviction and recovery of rent and damages. During the pendency of the aforesaid case, the brother of the defendant/respondent i.e. Sri Kamal Kumar Jain filed an impleadment application which was rejected. Subsequently, the wife of Kamal Kumar Jain namely Smt. Sushma Jain also filed an impleadment application which was also rejected by the Court below vide order dated 29.10.2005. Aggrieved with that order, the aforesaid Smt. Sushma Jain filed Civil Revision No. 38 of 2006 which was dismissed by this Court with cost of Rs. 5,000/- by order dated 25.8.2010. In that order, this Court upheld the findings of the Court below that the shop in question was taken on rent by Sri Pawan Jain in his personal capacity and not for the Firm M/s. Shivaji Machinery Stores.

5. In his written statement, the defendant/respondent admitted the fact of service of notice but he took the stand that he has already vacated the tenanted shop on 31.3.1995 and handed over the possession of the shop to the revisionist/landlord.

6. The Court below framed six issues in the said S.C.C. Case No. 02 of 2002. The issue No. 1 was as to whether the disputed shops have been vacated and possession has been given to the revisionist/landlord on 31.3.1995 by the defendant/respondent. On this issue, after considering the evidences, the trial Court recorded a finding of fact that the disputed shops were not vacated by the defendant/respondent on 31.3.1995 and its possession was not handed over by him to the revisionist/plaintiff/landlord. The issue No. 3 was as to whether the defendant/respondent defaulted in payment of rent from 1.8.2001 and also not paid the house tax and water tax. On this issue, the Court below recorded a finding of fact based on consideration of evidences that the defendant/respondent has not paid rent of Rs. 800/- per month after 1.8.2001 and has also not paid the house tax and water tax after commencement of tenancy on 1.10.1987 which he is liable to pay. The issue Nos. 2 and 4 were as to whether the notice dated 24.10.2001 was valid and whether due to non impleadment of remaining partners the suit was not maintainable. On these two issues the Court below has recorded the finding against the revisionist/plaintiff/landlord on the ground that notice to all the partners has not been given by the revisionist/plaintiff/landlord. Thus issue Nos. 2 and 4 were decided against the revisionist/plaintiff/landlord while the rest of the issues were decided in his favour. As a consequ